The argument against the warrant itself is solid. FOIAed emails show internal discussions between the Peoria PD and the Mayor's office, one of which includes the Chief of Police himself saying there are no laws being broken.

Mayor/Manager, I reviewed this matter with Detective Feehan. He is in the process of shutting down the account as you saw from my last email. This phony Twitter account does not constitute a criminal violation in that no threats are made. I'm not sure if it would support a civil suit for defamation of character. I'm not an expert in the civil arena but my recollection is that public officials have very limited protection from defamation. I asked (Feehan) about identity theft and he advised it did not qualify because the statute requires the use of personal identifying information such as a social security number, DOB, etc., and a financial gain form (sic) the use of that information.

Shortly after the raid and the ensuing debacle, the prosecutor dropped the (admittedly) bogus charges against Daniel.

Peoria County State’s Attorney Jerry Brady decided the offender must commit false personation in person. Using that reasoning, he didn’t charge Jon Daniel, the creator of the parody account, who also lived at the house.

This is the argument being used by Elliott's legal rep. If no crime was committed -- and the statute used to secure the warrant not applicable -- then the warrant should be thrown out, along with anything discovered during the raid.

But the judge doesn't see it that way. He says the police had "probable cause," even if the probable cause was (to put it nicely) misinformed.

Keith’s ruling means police had to reasonably think they would find items related to the parody Twitter account such as phones, flash drives, computers or similar things in Elliott’s bed or closet.

This is stuff the police did find. But the officers also looked under Elliott's pillows and in his closet. Judge Keith still wants them to answer for that.

Peoria police officers will testify Oct. 8 to explain why they looked under Elliott’s pillow and in a closet in his room, where police said they found the drugs in a gift bag.

As for the underlying cause being premised on a law that didn't say what police (and Mayor Ardis) wanted it to say, Judge Keith is less decisive.

Elliott’s attorney, Dan O’Day, sought to have the warrant declared invalid, arguing that police made a mistake and that anything found in the house should be thrown out of court.

Keith said he couldn’t make such a finding. He said the law was vague, and there was no case law that could guide judges on what legislators meant when they wrote the law.

But the prosecutor could make that decision, without the intercession of legislators or case law. He simply found that the law did not apply to Daniel's Twitter account and dropped the charges. Keith seems to be unable to wrap his mind around the fact that a warrant served to seize items and detain someone for not committing a crime is inherently flawed. That this was all uncovered after the raid took place does not excuse actions directed and led by a police chief and detective who admitted in emails that they knew the law didn't apply.

The "probable cause" was bogus from the start. The officers' actions in Elliott's bedroom aren't relevant because the whole search was a farce predicated on a deliberate misreading of a statute. The warrant may as well have stated it was seeking evidence of "harboring office supplies" or "manufacturing sandwiches without a license" for all the legal force it actually had behind it. While the warrant application lists "cocaine, heroin and drug paraphernalia" as things "reasonably" believed to be on the premises (no specific mention of marijuana or any other drugs, however), the statute clearly stated as the motivating force is False Personation, which doesn't cover Jon Daniel's Twitter account.

The police went after a Twitter account holder who had violated no laws and netted themselves a drug bust. The fact is, the police had no right to enter the premises in the first place and certainly shouldn't benefit from items seized that had nothing to do with the electronics (or other items) specified in the warrant application.

from the 'because-we-all-thought-we-were-doing-the-right-thing' dept

Back in April, humble Peoria, Illinois, made national news when its mayor and police department combined forces to shut down a parody Twitter account. The account, named after Mayor Jim Ardis, sent out a few days worth of sex-and-drugs tweets, something that very obviously would not have come from a mayor's actual Twitter account (exception: Rob Ford).

This very public display of stupidity may cost the City of Peoria, along with the many other defendants named in the lawsuit filed on behalf of the Twitter account owner (Jon Daniel) by the ACLU. Obviously, the First Amendment was all but forgotten in the mayor's quest to make this account -- one that was only seen by Mayor Jim Ardis and a handful of others -- disappear.

Defendants admit that from March 9 through March 19, 2014, Plaintiff tweeted from a twitter account, @peoriamayor, which used a picture of Defendant Ardis, the mayor of Peoria, as the account’s avatar. Defendants further admit that they pursued available legal means to shut down the account and to identify and pursue legal action against its creator. Defendants deny that they embarked on a plan to violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Defendants admit that, after obtaining appropriate warrants, Peoria Police Department officers searched Plaintiff’s residence and seized certain of his personal property, and imaged certain personal information as a result. Defendants deny that they arrested, detained and interrogated Plaintiff for the crime of false personation of a public official.

While there's no record that indicates the defendants "embarked on a plan" to violate Daniel's First Amendment rights, his rights were violated all the same. But the last sentence skirts the edges of plausibility. While it's true that the police never issued an arrest warrant for the charge of false personation, it did use that charge to obtain a search warrant of Jon Daniel's home. Daniel was picked up by the police and questioned about his involvement with the Twitter account, but he was never truly arrested. Instead, he was detained -- the sort of thing that can turn indefinite while simultaneously freeing the police from having to file any possibly damning paperwork. So, the first part ("arrest") didn't happen. But the last two ("detained," "interrogated") did.

The claim that the city used "legal means" to pursue the Twitter user is also dodgy. While all the appropriate paperwork was indeed legal, the charge under which they were acquired was bogus, as became completely apparent when the State's Attorney's office refused to prosecute.

While still in full denial mode, the city also takes issue with certain characterizations made by the plaintiff.

28. On March 20, 2014, Ardis and the City, in a letter to Twitter written by the Interim Corporation Counsel for the City, threatened to file a federal lawsuit seeking an injunction against Twitter to terminate the Twitter account. Twitter suspended the Twitter account that same day.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 28, except Defendants deny the characterization of the letter as “threatening.”

A letter that informs a party that efforts will escalate if cooperation isn't forthcoming is, by definition, a "threatening" letter. There's no way around it. The only way the city counsel's letter wouldn't have been threatening is if it hadn't been written at all. The defendants may not like the characterization (which, it should be noted, is a characterization the plaintiff never makes in the allegations), but that's an inarguable point. Friendly letters don't contain warnings about potential legal actions.

Further on, the city's lawyers attempt to deny the plaintiff felt the way he claims to have felt.

At the police station, Mr. Daniel was told he had to take everything out of his pockets before entering an interrogation room. Mr. Daniel emptied the contents of his pockets, which included his cellular telephone, and placed the items on a chair in the station. He was then taken into an interrogation room. Mr. Daniel reasonably believed he was not free to leave the interrogation room or the police station.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 37, except Defendants deny Plaintiff’s characterization of the interview room as an interrogation room, and further deny that Plaintiff reasonably believed he was not free to leave when he was at the police station.

I'm not sure how a defendant can claim a plaintiff is wrong about their beliefs. We're not talking about creation vs. evolution or round earth vs. flat earth but whether Daniel felt he could just get up and walk out of the interrogation/interview room. Most people -- many of them "reasonable" -- feel that being detained by police officers only ends when the officers say it ends. They may be able to force the issue by asking (repeatedly) "Am I free to go?" but it's a nearly universal feeling that one does not simply leave an interview room -- especially when a police officer or two are standing in it.

Not only is it a terrible claim to make in general, but it's an awful thing to say in a court document. This is the City of Peoria telling the judge that it knows how Daniel felt when he was detained and he didn't feel the way he says he felt in his allegations. That's a pretty audacious statement even if it is the sort of thing that routinely graces defendants' response filings.

And, finally, the city asks everyone to trust that it hasn't dug through the contents of the numerous electronic devices that were seized.

Defendants deny that Defendant Hughes searched Plaintiff’s electronic devices. Defendants admit that Defendant Feehan imaged Plaintiff’s cell phone, and that other electronic devices which may have belonged to Plaintiff may also have been imaged for subsequent review by detectives, but state affirmatively that the State’s Attorney’s Office indicated it would not be pursuing charges against Plaintiff before any such data was reviewed and that, as a result, it was determined that the data would not be reviewed.

First off, we're expected to believe no searching occurred (or will occur) despite the fact that the electronics were imaged by the Peoria police. At the very latest, the police secured warrants to search the electronics by April 17th. It wasn't until April 23rd that it was announced that the State Attorney was dropping the charges. That's nearly an entire week. (Daniel's phone -- seized during his "interview" with the Peoria PD -- wasn't returned until May 2nd, and only after he non-threateningly threatened legal action.) The investigation was still open during the intervening six days and the police had secured warrants, so it seems highly unlikely no one took at look at the data obtained. And unless someone specifies otherwise during the course of this lawsuit, the police still have the imaged content.

The denials are followed by a three-page list of affirmative defenses that states the rest of the defendants are either entitled to qualified immunity or not directly liable for these actions. The most ridiculous claim here is that shutting down a parody Twitter account (one that was marked as a parody before most of the legal action took place) wasn't a violation of Daniel's First Amendment rights.

With regard to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim, Defendants have qualified immunity from liability for the damages claimed by Plaintiff because Defendants did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

So, the city's lawyers feel Jon Daniel "reasonably" should have known he could just walk out of a police interview room at any time, but that shutting down a Twitter account and searching a house for electronics related to it wasn't the sort of thing that any "reasonable person" might find to be a violation of their First Amendment rights.

I realize a lot of this is just normal defensive legalese, but it doesn't make some of these assertions any less ridiculous, especially considering the events leading to this litigation -- namely, a mayor's offense at a clearly parodic Twitter account culminating in the seizure of every electronic device in Daniel's house. The fact that internal emails show that the police knew they had no solid legal footing to pursue this case is going to hurt the city's claims that everything about this debacle was lawful and reasonable.

from the at-rock-bottom-but-still-working-that-shovel dept

Peoria mayor Jim Ardis has responded to the ACLU's announcement of its lawsuit against him (and several others) over the actions taken to shut down a parodic Twitter account. Ardis' "press conference" was really nothing more than him reading a prepared statement and refusing to answer any questions.

His statement shovels blame on the media, complains about having his "identity stolen" and goes long on pointing out that the Twitter account (or "site," as he prefers to call it) was not clearly marked as a parody at its inception. But the highlight by far is Mayor Ardis reading some of the tweets delivered by the account.

Ardis still seems to think he's completely right, but nearly everything he states is wrong.

First off, while the account wasn't marked as a parody when it first went live (March 9th), it had been by three days later (March 12th). Despite this, the mayor and the police continued their hunt of the account's owner. This hunt continued even after they managed to convince Twitter to suspend the account (March 20th).

Ardis repeats the claim that the account wasn't marked as a parody, as though that makes the entire month of police activity past the point of the account's shutdown (and six weeks past the point the account was marked as a parody by Jon Daniel, the account's owner) completely appropriate. Separately, while the lack of being marked as parody for three days may have violated Twitter's terms of service, it has no real bearing on the fact that it's protected speech. Mayor Ardis seems to think that unless something is marked as parody, it's not parody. But the point that many people were making, was that anyone reading the crazy statements on the Twitter feed would recognize it as obvious parody for being so extreme. In fact, having Mayor Ardis read out some of the tweets only seems to confirm the point. What he thinks is so conclusive as evidence that he's right, really only seems to prove the opposite: that the account was making statements so extreme and ridiculous that they were clearly parody, and not real.

Ardis also attacks the media for misrepresenting the facts. That's very hard to do when you're quoting police reports and police department/mayor's office emails directly. Since day one, the media has portrayed this event as Mayor Jim Ardis abusing his power to shut down a Twitter account he didn't like -- a portrayal that is borne out by the documents obtained from public records requests.

He also claims the media is being hypocritical by claiming the account was harmless while simultaneously refusing to print the "offensive" content of the tweets. This is his stupidest assertion. A Twitter account that did nothing but tweet out repeated profanities would be harmless while still being something most journalistic entities wouldn't print verbatim. Arbitrary standards for print are not legal standards for obscenity.

Either way, just because many people may find the account's tweets highly distasteful (and probably wouldn't retweet @grandma, etc.), it still doesn't make the speech less protected or Mayor Jim Ardis any more "right" about pursuing the person behind the account. Once the account was marked as parody, such that it complied with Twitter's terms of service, that should have been the end of it.

[A]ccording to a source inside City Hall, the officials who aggressively pursued Daniel, the creator of the account, were also wrong in a much more mundane way: They thought I was behind @peoriamayor and assumed I worked for the local paper, the Journal Star...

In an email that was released because of a Freedom of Information Act request, Ardis asked his subordinates what “JS reporter” lived with Daniel, and a police official said he didn’t know. If the source in City Hall is correct, Ardis was convinced that reporter was me, and likely thought that by exposing me as the foul-mouthed fiend behind @peoriamayor he’d ruin my reputation as a journalist and that of the Journal Star in the process.

This adds a bit more background to the mayor's apparent disdain for the media. Glawe also points out that the braintrust behind the account shutdown not only seemed to have a poor grasp of the law (perhaps intentionally), but was also mystified by the technical aspects of dealing with an online social media platform.

At one point, some city officials and cops thought they could call Twitter to have @peoriamayor shut down, so it’s no surprise that they apparently couldn’t be bothered to google my name and find out who I was and whom I work for.

In related news, Peoria Police Chief Steve Stettingsgaard has stepped down to take a job with Caterpillar, Inc. While his entire tenure at the head of the PPD has been marked with controversy, there's no doubt this latest incident played a part in convincing him to exit the law enforcement business.

Bizarrely, Mayor Ardis hints he's looking at pursuing someone (Jon Daniel or possibly even Twitter itself) for "defamation," apparently forgetting the email conversation he had with Chief Stettingsgaard back on March 11th.

Mayor/Manager, I reviewed this matter with Detective Feehan. He is in the process of shutting down the account as you saw from my last email. This phony Twitter account does not constitute a criminal violation in that no threats are made. I'm not sure if it would support a civil suit for defamation of character. I'm not an expert in the civil arena but my recollection is that public officials have very limited protection from defamation.

If Ardis decides to pursue this, he'll just be adding to his list of highly-public debacles. His defensive press conference indicates he's unable and unwilling to learn from his mistakes. There's no case to be made here, especially if Ardis decides to go after Twitter itself for the actions of one of its users. But it appears Ardis has dignity to burn, even if most of it is riddled with self-inflicted wounds.

from the the-streisand-school-of-reputation-management dept

Sue 'em if they can't take a joke.

Well, sue 'em if they can't take a joke and go so far as to raid your house, seize your electronics and abuse a law that contains no provision for impersonating someone via electronic means, in order to show you how much they aren't laughing.

As was noted earlier, the ACLU is representing Jon Daniel, the Peoria native behind a Twitter account that parodied Mayor Jim "Trill As Fuck" Ardis. Ardis was sufficiently offended by the off-color nature of the account that he demanded the local police do something about it. And they were only too happy to comply, rooting around in the local statutes (and throwing in child porn accusations for good measure) until they found something they could use.

It didn't take. Charges were dropped by the District Attorney, and Mayor Ardis was forced to defend himself against angry citizens who had just witnessed the power of government being thoroughly (and pettily) abused. According to Ardis, he had to do this. Until the account was closed, he had no First Amendment rights… at least according to his bizarre rationale.

The ACLU has filed its complaint against the City of Peoria, the mayor, his staff and a handful of law enforcement officials. The lawsuit asks for no specific damages, but one imagines those named are now in the process of nailing down a settlement amount that's affordable without being insulting.

The filing also fills in some more details on the overreach and abuse by these public figures and public servants. One of the more surprising details is just how long the Peoria PD held onto Daniel's cell phone (presumably as evidence of a Twitter account).

Daniel was arrested (at work) on April 15th. Charges were dropped on April 23rd (something Daniel learned from the papers, rather than from the city itself). That day, he visited the police department to get his phone back. The police refused. Daniel's lawyer sent a letter the next day demanding the release of Daniel's phone. It took all the way until May 2nd for the PPD to return property it never should have had in the first place.

Equally as surprising was how many warrants were crafted and served over a parodic Twitter account. In addition to the warrant served Twitter, the PPD also served one to Comcast. It obtained warrants to search his residence and cell phone. (Presumably, warrants were in the works for the electronics seized during the four-officer raid of the Twitter parody account's "headquarters" -- i.e., Daniel's home.) According to the filing, the PPD was also working on a warrant to serve to Google to access Daniel's email account. All of this over a Twitter account that was shut down by Twitter on March 20th after verifying that Mayor Jim Ardis was not behind it.

There's nothing in here that wasn't done out of sheer vindictiveness. Once the account was closed, Ardis was free to create an official account for the mayor's office. But he didn't. Instead, he worked closely with Peoria Police for more than a month to ensure the account's creator was punished. Now, he and his office, along with every law enforcement member involved, are being sued for violating Daniel's rights. I'm sure this isn't playing out exactly how Ardis envisioned it. Instead of "protecting" his reputation, he's completely destroyed it, doing more damage than a profane parody account (or twelve...) could ever do.

Ardis and others learned of the account on March 11 and sent dozens of emails over the next few days, apparently panicked by the idea that someone with a few dozen Twitter followers was making fun of the mayor. On March 12, Ardis himself asked City Manager Patrick Urich, “Any chance we can put a sense of urgency on this?” Urich passed that request on to Settingsgaard, saying, “Quickly please.”

Ardis (and his office) pursued this vigorously, telling the Chief of Police (Steve Settingsgaard) that he definitely wanted to prosecute. The first of three search warrants went out March 13th, at which point the Twitter account had already been marked as a parody. Twitter informed the city of this fact, but the push went on regardless. Twitter yanked the account on March 20th, but that still didn't stop Ardis from pushing a very compliant police department into raiding Daniel's home on April 15th.

Glawe points out that, according to obtained emails, the police were initially reluctant to pursue this as they could see no evidence of any laws being broken, at least according to an email sent by Chief Settingsgaard to Mayor Ardis on March 11th.

Mayor/Manager, I reviewed this matter with Detective Feehan. He is in the process of shutting down the account as you saw from my last email. This phony Twitter account does not constitute a criminal violation in that no threats are made. I'm not sure if it would support a civil suit for defamation of character. I'm not an expert in the civil arena but my recollection is that public officials have very limited protection from defamation. I asked (Feehan) about identity theft and he advised it did not qualify because the statute requires the use of personal identifying information such as a social security number, DOB, etc., and a financial gain form (sic) the use of that information. Twitter does not require identifying information other than an email address and name, and there appears to be no financial gain.

Detective Feehan followed this up with his own email, again confirming that Daniel appeared to have broken no laws with his parody account, as well as pointing out he had asked for Twitter to remove the account.

But Detective Feehan, being the detective he is, dug around in Illinois law until he found the state's "false personification" statute and used this to pursue the owner of the account. The Peoria Police were able to push this past local judges with a very expansive warrant, which also contained claims that the occupants of the house were likely involved in some very nasty criminal activity.

In his search warrant affidavit, detective Stevie Hughes wrote that there was “probable cause to believe” that the seized data would contain “evidence, fruits, contraband, and instrumentalities of the dissemination and possession of child pornography.”

This, along with a claim that the house would be full of drug paraphernalia related to "cocaine and heroin" use, was used to justify the seizure of nearly every electronic device in the house.

Post-backlash, the district attorney (whose office played a big part in crafting the three warrants used in this case) announced that no charges would be filed in relation to the Twitter account. That doesn't do much to help Daniel's friend, who is still facing drug charges for possession of marijuana thanks to the Peoria police's willingness to help Mayor Ardis violate others' First Amendment rights.

April Clemons, who was one of several to speak in the public comments portion of a meeting that stretched nearly to 11 p.m., told Mayor Jim Ardis she is the “proud owner of a new Jim Ardis parody account."

Clemons then told Ardis he “screwed up.” Near the end of her comments, Clemons turned to Chief of Police Steve Settingsgaard and told him the same.

For his part, Chief Settingsgaard defended his actions, along with the actions of his officers, saying he was not a "jack-booted thug" and that he was "pleasantly surprised" that only four officers served the warrant at Daniel's residence (contrary to earlier reports of seven officers being involved). "Normally, there's more."

Mayor Ardis, after defending his actions by claiming that a.) the existence of a parody Twitter account took away his free speech rights, and b.) that it was the media's fault that he looked like a thin-skinned, power-abusing ass, has remained completely silent about the incident. Perhaps this has been prompted by the city's lawyers, who realize they may soon be on the receiving end of civil rights lawsuits because of the police department's actions.

The ACLU of Illinois now represents Mr. Daniel, the creator of the Twitter parody. Mr. Daniel, like other parodists, has a First Amendment right to post these tweets. He was engaging in a time-honored tradition of poking fun at public officials — even when the public official doesn’t like it. Because Mr. Daniel’s activities were protected, they should never have led to a warrant and search of his home. The police activity in this case was unnecessary and contrary to both the First and Fourth Amendment protections to which he was entitled.

In the coming weeks, the ACLU of Illinois anticipates bringing legal action in support of Mr. Daniel against those officials who are responsible for the violations of his rights. We hope this action will send a strong signal to all that wrongful use of the police power to suppress protected speech, even when it is critical or makes fun of public officials is an abuse of power and is not acceptable.

from the i'd-find-something-else-to-spend-the-reelection-fund-on dept

As we recently covered, Jim Ardis, the absurdly thin-skinned mayor of Peoria, IL, got the boys in blue to raid a house over a parody Twitter account that portrayed him as a.) a possible drug user, b.) a possible patron of the world's oldest profession and c.) "trill as fuck." Peoria's Finest have never been finer, deploying seven plainclothes officers to nail a dangerous tweeter whose Ardis-mocking account had been shut down by Twitter weeks before. Bonus: drugs were discovered during the raid, which meant the cops could at least declare victory over marijuana use, if not the internet itself.

"I still maintain my right to protect my identity is my right," Ardis said in an interview with the Journal Star before the council meeting.

"Are there no boundaries on what you can say, when you can say it, who you can say it to?" Ardis said. "You can’t say (those tweets) on behalf of me. That’s my problem. This guy took away my freedom of speech."

Presumably prior to this awesome show of force, the mayor had been forced to sit quietly with his hands folded on his desk. But now that he's stomped on someone else's First Amendment rights, he can finally freely speak.

A review of state law indicates the account holders of now-shutdown Twitter account, @peoriamayor, didn’t break the law because the actual crime alleged, “false personation of a public official,” has to be done in person, not over the Internet or other electronic media, said State’s Attorney Jerry Brady.

"At this time, no, because subsection (b) doesn’t include the use of electronic media," he said.

There are also questions as to whether the unrelated drug charge will stick because, well, it's completely unrelated. The warrant used to raid the house appears to be on legally shaky ground already, and its supposed purpose was to effect arrests and seize evidence related to a Twitter account, not root around until something better presented itself. But it could be weeks before that part is sorted out. The States Attorney says it's not uncommon for search warrants and affidavits to take "several days to weeks" to arrive at his office. (Must send these via trans-Atlantic steamer, I guess...) One imagines documents related to this case will take longer than usual.

Meanwhile, the population of Peoria, along with the city council, is extremely angry that Ardis abused his position. A long, heated discussion of this incident included members decrying Ardis receiving preferential treatment from the Peoria PD, as well as generally lamenting how his actions have turned Peoria into a national laughingstock.

Ardis, however, seems unfazed. He still firmly believes he did nothing wrong. The problem here is everyone else, starting with the media.

"You’re the ones responsible for getting full information, but not to spin it in the way you want to spin it," Ardis said to a Journal Star reporter. "To make us look stupid."

"It’s your responsibility to put actual information out there and cover both sides. Not to opine. And that didn’t happen. Clearly, that didn’t happen."

Hey, Ardis. Only one person can make you look stupid, and he's that person up there claiming the First Amendment can't be evenly divided among several people. The actual information is out there. And it all adds up to Ardis not being able to take a joke, ordering cops to arrest people he doesn't find funny, and complaining about "suddenly" being universally reviled.

Illinois police seized computers and mobile phones while raiding a house whose owner was suspected of parodying the town mayor on Twitter.

In all, five people following the Tuesday evening raid were taken to the Peoria Police Department station for questioning, local media report.

The Twitter account, which had all of 50 followers, and had been already shut down by Twitter "weeks ago," became the flash point for a police raid that involved seven plainclothes officers and the detainment of five people - two of whom were cuffed at their place of employment.

If the mayor felt there was something wrong with this "impersonation," he had plenty of other options available that wouldn't have resulted in this egregious show of force. For one, he could have contacted Twitter and asked for the account to be suspended. (And, for all we know, he did. [UPDATE: see below.] The account hadn't been active for "weeks" by the time the raid took place.) Second, he could have pursued this through civil action (if he felt the account was defamatory, etc.). There was no reason to involve the police in this -- unless, of course, this was the sort of thing the Peoria Police enjoy doing.

Peoria is a town of 116,000 people. It has some problems with crime and also some problems with the police, which you can get a sense of if you follow my work or the work of Matt Buedel, the Journal Star crime reporter who broke a several stories last yeardetailing misconduct within the police department, including an attempt to catch a city councilman in a prostitution sting. The Illinois Attorney General’s Office ruled that an internal report regarding some of those acts of alleged misconduct should be released, but the city and the police department refused. (That report was apparently “lost” by Settingsgaard, and somehow ended up in the hands of a panhandler who, coincidentally, I used to work at a gas station with and know to be a pretty serious drug addict.)

The prostitution sting involved 12 task force officers staking out a Red Roof Inn overnight in hopes of catching Dan Irving, a city council candidate, with a prostitute. This sting ran the day after a close primary election. (Irving went on to lose the general election.) The overnight stakeout was ultimately fruitless as Irving never arrived at the motel with or without a prostitute.

Evidence exists that the Peoria Police Department is willing to be politically motivated. These officers trashed rooms and grabbed every device with an internet connection (including some Xboxes), proclaiming they were linked to an "internet crime." Although no one's been charged yet (other than an unrelated marijuana possession charge -- hooray for the fortuitous results of a bogus police search), the chief of the Peoria Police has dug deep enough into Illinois law to find something to use against the person running the long-suspended, inside joke of an account.

Peoria Police Chief Steve Settingsgaard said the department was investigating misdemeanor charges of impersonating a public official, which carries a maximum one-year jail term and $2,500 fine. The chief, according to the Southern Illinoisan, said it "appears that someone went to great lengths to make it appear it was actually from the mayor."

Really? "Great lengths?" How many Twitter users would have believed the following was issued by the Mayor or his office?

Beyond that, the account bio was changed on March 10th to indicate the account was a parody. A couple of weeks later, it was suspended. Three weeks after that, Peoria police corral five people and their electronics in order to stop something that was already dead and never popular.

Now, news of this has spread nationwide, and as Justin Glawes points out, it has led to the generation of several more fake Peoria Mayor accounts. The colossally stupid effort has done little more than given the nation a reason to dig into the misdeeds of the Peoria Police and an indication of just how thin Mayor Ardis' skin is.